The French president had not taken any action since taking office that could make him unpopular in Quebec. He sent his Prime Minister Gabriel Attal last March, who was able to show both the importance he attached to Canada, a NATO and G7 country, and the favorable institutional and historical bias of his country towards Quebec. In Ottawa, alongside Justin Trudeau, Attal declared with confidence and serenity his support for the policy of “non-interference and non-indifference” inaugurated by Alain Peyrefitte and followed by almost all his successors. A formula favored by Quebec and tolerated by Ottawa.
In a few hours, Friday, Emmanuel Macron would show that he didn’t give a damn. Asked about Justin Trudeau, on the eve of elections which will probably end his political career, Macron delivered this clear signal: “I believe that the path which is his, which he proposed to you and which you have validated in several elections is the right one. » The leader of the opposition, the conservative Pierre Poilievre, whom he will probably meet at the next G7, will have appreciated it.
But where does Macron stand on the subject of non-interference and non-indifference? All he had to do was say that he agreed, and that was it. But in an interview with Radio-Canada, he distanced himself. “It’s good that predecessors did this, but do I need to do this today? In truth, in a political context which will have escaped no one’s notice, I do not want to interfere in your national political context, precisely out of respect and esteem, and I think that the role of the French president, in a moment where minds flare, it is not about adding complexity or emotion. »
It is true that tension is high these days between Quebec and Ottawa, the former judging the latter insensitive to its national interests, particularly in matters of immigration. Macron therefore indicates to his interlocutors in Quebec that, when everything is calm, he can display his “non-indifference”. But when it heats up, then no. Isn’t it precisely in these moments that we test the value of our true friends?
Perhaps Emmanuel Macron is not, in fact, a true friend of Quebec. Journalist Louis Blouin asked him if he was not, in fact, frankly in favor of Canadian unity, as Nicolas Sarkozy famously indicated during his own disastrous visit in 2008.
“Not at all,” Macron initially protested. I’m not here to give Canadians lessons and tell them what I would be for. ” The role of the president, he then explained, teaching Canadians a lesson and telling them what he is for, is to “say, basically, that you have a model that is the fruit of history. There is always constructive tension. In these tensions, there is always something fruitful. And France looks at Canada with a lot of — yes — friendship, affection and also fascination.” The role of the president, he added, “is to explain that if everyone agrees, it is a good solution, in a world struck by wars.”
There is neither interference nor indifference in these remarks. Emmanuel Macron has just told Quebecers that Canada, this country of “fruitful tensions”, “is a good solution”, because he notes that “everyone finds something there”. It’s new.
Macron also put himself at odds with many actors in French political life. Gabriel Attal, probable candidate for his succession, could decide to contradict him on this point. Michel Barnier, a Gaullist who has fond memories of “Long live free Quebec!” », could this very week, during his meeting with the Quebec Prime Minister, François Legault, contradict his president. The left-wing leaders Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the right-wing Marine Le Pen are also in tune with the discourse taken from Peyrefitte to Attal, and not with the Sarkozy-Macron deviance. This subject is obviously not at the top of their concerns. But if Macron was looking for one more subject of political isolation, he has just found it.
How to explain that Macron abandoned Quebec? It is true that at the G7 and at NATO, it is with Canada that the French president works. At the time of tenors Brian Mulroney or Jean Chrétien, one would have admitted that their voices carried weight. But can we seriously assert that Justin Trudeau, seen in Canada itself as a dunce in international politics, is of any use? The realpolitik is elsewhere: the majority of Canadian tourists who visit France are from Quebec; the majority of Canadian investment in France is from Quebec; Most French products sold in Canada are sold in Quebec.
An anecdote, to finish. Advisor to the independence Prime Minister Jacques Parizeau, I was preparing the trip he was going to make to Paris at the beginning of 1995. I had asked Pierre Bourgault to write the historical portion of the speech which would be delivered to the French National Assembly. We found this passage there, unusable, but screaming for truth.
I quote from memory: “It has been said too often that France had abandoned Quebec at the time of the Conquest. She was busy with several simultaneous conflicts, and one can understand the difficult decisions made at the time. But if tomorrow, Quebecers decided to give themselves a country and France was not at their side, we could never say it enough! »
In the Canada-Quebec balance of power, Emmanuel Macron has chosen his side. It’s just a bad time to go through.